What do you think?
Sam is 21 years old and lives with his parent. He has his own room as well as expectation of privacy. However, through the use of an informant cops recieve information that Sam has crack in his room. Acting upon that information, cops knocked upon the door of the house and the parents answered at the door. Asking the mom for permission to search the room that her Son lives in, she replied "sure go right ahead, my son would never be involved in a crime." Evidence was obtained from the room of Sam and Sam was arrested. Sam is challenging the search and seizure by calling for a suppression hearing on the following grounds:
a) He has a right of privacy in his room because legally his room is his home
b) He is an adult and his parent cannot speak or give permission for him on his behalf
c) He was never informed, produced with a warrant, or ask for consent to carry out a search
d) And as such evidence obtained was in violation of his personal privacy as guaranteed by the constitution
What is your opinion on this case? Put yourself in the place of the judge making the decision.
Evidence Suppressed
Side Score: 3
|
 |
Evidence Admissible
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
"If this informant was someone they are using then they should have gotten a warrant to search his room" This statement can easily be brushed away if theyclaim that time was against them and they believed the purpetrator was going to run away. "and unfortunately this person would probably get off" Only if they can afford a trial and then afford an exxcellent lawyer, it's more likely that he will be persecuted and the police officers sanctioned. Side: Evidence Admissible
|
Sam should recieve the full punishment for the possession of illegal drugs but the police officers who enforced that operation should also be sanctioned for not carrying out the correct procedure, if the victim didn't possess illegal goods the police officers would probably have been sanctioned harder. Since Sam is a legal adult but he's still living witgh his parents his parents then lose the role of actin g on his behalf but instead have a fomr of "landlord" role which I believe would then give them the right to allow law enforcement officers to enter rooms on their premises. Side: Evidence Admissible
1
point
that may be true but even so you need a search warrent you also must take into account the reliability and background of the informent the informent more often then not the informant is an informent because he was cut a deal by the police and is trying to save his own ass Side: Evidence Suppressed
I think you guys are forgetting about one piece of reliable information. The police officers did not go against element of the law because according to the law, the legal owner of the house is Sam's parents. Therefore, the police do not need any permission from Sam because Sam does not own the house or the room. He does not pay for rent and the entire property that includes the room is under the legal name of his parents. Therefore, under the said law just discussed, only Sam's parents can have the legal authority or legal standing to object or grant permission for the search to be executed. Since permission was given by the owner of the house of legal standing, the police therefore do not need a warrant to execute the search so therefore evidence obtained during the search can and will be ruled admissible in Court and the police officers cannot in any way be sanctioned. The issue of age has no relevance here, it is the issue of ownership and legal standing and under whose name and authority the premises of the property is in. Side: Evidence Admissible
|
